Re: SATA DVD not recognized
Basajaun said...
> marc wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I´m trying to get a Plextor 712-SA DVD drive working on an Asus A8N-SLI
> > > with kernel 2.6.13. I can load the libata and sata_nv modules, and there
> > > are messages about adding and removing SATA devices. Also, it says the
> > > SATA device on the first SATA port, which is the DVD drive, is being
> > > configured for UDMA33.
> > >
> > > I have only the first two SATA ports enabled in the BIOS, and they show
> > > up as scsi2 and scsi3. The system is SCSI only except for the DVD drive.
> > >
> > > I cannot access the DVD drive because there´s no device for it. It also
> > > doesn´t show up in /proc/scsi/scsi.
>
> [snip]
>
> > SATA works pretty well here. A one line fix, that I've been using on a
> > laptop, involves activating ATAPI in include/linux/libata.h. I'm using
> > this on 2.6.13-3, and also used it on 2.12 kernels.
> >
> > #undef ATA_ENABLE_ATAPI /* define to enable ATAPI support */
> > to
> > #define ATA_ENABLE_ATAPI /* define to enable ATAPI support */
>
> [snip]
>
> Somehow I fail to see how changing the source file of a module one has
> to subsequently recompile can qualify as "works pretty well". Damn, we
> are not in the dark ages were Linux users were suposed (required) to be
> computer geeks.
LOL I'm not a geek, but very much a user. And I agree with what you say.
Should SATA have been tackled earlier? It certainly looks like it. But
perhaps this is just how long it takes.
Now, I certainly question the manner in which one has to find
information about all these "gotchas" - that is in geekdom.
Communication, imo, is a big issue. Being told to "look harder" when
searching for information is the method of the Dark Ages - something
that will have to change before Linux is viable for the non or lesser
geek.
> I am lately having some bad experiences with Debian, which, although
> made me learn a lot, where a pain, and I keep seing people have similar
> problems, mainly with SATA, SCSI emulation, 2.4 vs 2.6 kernels and the
> system being able or not to see the HD or CD-ROM:
I agree. I could add my experiences over the last month to the list.
> 1) Debian can not be installed on a SATA HD from scratch with a 2.6
> kernel. Rather, one has to install with kernel 2.4, _then_ upgrade the
> kernel. This is so because, under 2.6, SATA is seen as SCSI, and
> somehow this makes the install program not see the IDE CD drive it is
> being installed from.
The last PC on which I installed XP required the SATA drivers to be
provided on a floppy - copied from the installation CD! Hopefully, this
has changed with the most recent m/bs. And hopefully, the Linux kernel
will very soon support this natively.
That said, for recent laptops, it seems that you are always going to
need kernel sources - whether vanilla or hacked, sorry, patched -
because most other components need to be compiled against it. e.g.
wireless drivers, fast graphic cards, ACPI. etc.
Currently, one has to run around half a dozen or so lists/groups to keep
pace with the developments for you particular recipe of hardware. This
will have to change at some point.
We have apt-get update for Debian and M$ have Automatic Updates, of
course, and the Linux community will have to find an equivalent for
hardware and kernel related issues at some point.
How this fits with the Debian concept of "stable", I don't know.
> 2) Booting on 2.4 gives SATA drives /dev/hdaX names. Booting on 2.6
> gives /dev/sdaX names. Result: /etc/fstab hell. I think that fiddling
> with grub/menu.lst can fix it, but this shouldn't be necessary.
I agree. In fact, I've given up with the auto generated grub stanzas,
because they always show hda instead of sda. They also blast some
essential kernel parameters, thus making them less than useless :-o
> 3) Unless some modules (ide-core, etc.) are inserted in the kernel or
> included in the initrd.img, when booting on a SATA drive, the IDE
> devices will go unnoticed, because the ata_piix module hijacks the ide0
> and ide1.
I saw this, but in my case I can remove all the IDE modules, which were
failing during boot, in any case.
Perhaps what we need is a more streamlined kernel building process. The
current fallback is "roll your own kernel". I would agree that this
mentality has to go at some point.
> All this can be "easily" fixed...
I never said this, so I don't know whom you are quoting.
> but grrrrr, it shouldn't be required!
> I want Debian to boot and install flawlessly on both IDE and SATA, with
> eider kernel 2.4 or 2.6. I want to have my CD accesible with any
> kernel/HD type, just by default, w/o fiddling with anything...
<ironic> Let me be the first to say that you will be able to in the near
future.</ironic>
--
Best,
Marc
Reply to: